Author
Topic: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please? (Read 19131 times)

I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too. The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.

I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too. The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.

All I can tell you about mine is this. Ive dropped it three times onto rocks. Its been covered in sand, sea and rain. It works perfectly. Is it the worlds sharpest lens? Center wide open its excellent, stop it down and its pretty good across the frame, good enough I cant see any problems on my A3 prints. Its not a 500 f4 but its never going to be. For a wide angle its very good. It has its distortion problems but again its a wide angle and a quick tweek in lightroom and its gone. I managed to use a 14mm prime to take some shots at the same time as my 16-35. Both pics look exactly the same. Ok ones a little wider. Tones and colours pretty much identical. Sharpness? Well I couldnt tell any differance until I zoomed way in and the prime had it, just. But a little post sharpening and theres not much differance. Again I had to zoom way in. Can the human eye detect the differance at the sizes I print is doubtfull. Perhaps edge sharpness was just a bit less than the prime at f16-f22 but its very small on my prints. If I did print bigger stuff then Id buy the prime otherwise I love the 16-35, does what it says on the tin and does it pretty well.

I think most of the complaints about the 16-35mm L II are the result of the particularly stellar Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. The Nikon 14-24 is an exceptionally sharp lens, particularly at 14mm. It was kind of a game-changer when it hit the streets. Until that lens, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was an excellent lens with the best quality zoom you could get at that wide of a focal length.

It is a bit dated now, from an optical design perspective, relative to both the Nikon 14-24 as well as Canon's newer generation of lenses from the last couple of years. I bet the CA could be dealt with by using some fluorite elements. The corner softness could probably be corrected with an aspheric element group. I think Canon could do much better, if they tried again today. Bring it up to snuff with the rest of the new lenses.

I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too. The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.

Ok, here's my thoughts on the 16-35 II L:If I shoot at f2.8, I kind of want blurry corners and heavy vigneting...it saves me adding them later in post. If I want sharp corners....then I stop down because it's likely I'm going to need the depth of field. I wish this lens has less ghosting and flare in harsh sunlight (ie sunrise / sunsets) but I adore the star bursts I get with this lens. It's sharp enough for most professional uses and my copy is probably my most used lens and it shows! It's a work horse of a lens and it's built to last. The lens hood is a waste of plastic...what is the point? Using 82mm thin filters allows polarisation right down to 16mm....nice! Oh, due to it's lack of a bulbous front element, I can fit filters....that's a real plus point for landscapes. It's weather sealed...another plus point, it's a fast f2.8 and it's gives a brighter metering than many f2.8 lenses. It's AF is quick and accurate.

The optics are designed to be partially corrected, which is exactly the most useful for an ultra wide lens. A Sigma 12-24mm mk I is a fully corrected altra wide, it's uncanny in that straight lines really do stay straight and it's a great architecture lens as a result...but photographing people can be a problem because circles become egg shaped towards the outer edges of the frame. So photographing people becomes an issue...due to circular distortion. A fisheye does the opposite, straight lines bend but circles stay...well circular! So Canon chose a perfect compromise with this lens, it walks a great line (sorry for the pun) between the two camps and allows the photographer to post correct either way without too much loss of resolution. It can shoot architecture and people as a result...unlike the Siggi or Nikkor 14-24mm. Versatility is the key to this lens and that's what makes it so good, not the lens charts that's poked in front of it. Sure there's a lot of room for improvement, but this lens does so much so well. It's one of the most useful professional lenses that there currently is available on the Canon mount. Sure it's not the most exotic or sharpest of Canon's zoom lenses. But it's certainly very versatile and can shoot and lot of different genres with easy....in short....it gets the shots and brings the money in.

I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too. The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.

I think he was referring to the flash technique used. It wasn't the best but no big deal, I make mistakes too. I just look at mine and try to learn from it. The second photo is really amazing and well done so it's not like you don't know what you're doing.

First, my 20/2.8, 28/1.8 are sharper, crisper in the center. I've not really taken a good look at the edges.

My own 16-35L II is soft on detail at 16mm, but retains good contrast. It looks sharper than it really is.

By 24mm it sharpens up considerably, and is not too bad (but not stellar) at 35mm.

The primes kick its poverbial butt.

Falloff... not an issue on my 5Dii or 7D which are correctable for that.

My own copy shows about -6 focus correction at 35mm, and maybe (hard to tell) +2 at 16mm. My bodies will only correct for the entire spectrum of a zoom lens, so I set it at -5 as a compromise.

Its not an OMG THATS SHARP!!!! lens. Its more than adequate though, and retains good contrast and color, and low flare through all its zoom range. Flare is pretty well corrected too.

I shoot it, because its 16mm, and I find that I use that low low end of focal length quite a lot. I can still zoom in for a 35mm focal length (my favorite). It might as well be a 16 or 35 rather than a 16-35 zoom. I rarely use the intermediate focal lengths.

And yah, I'd get it again in a heartbeat if it was lost stolen damaged etc etc etc

Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?Umm... That's it really.Please!!

Do a Google search for Canon 16-35 f/2.8II review and you'll have enough reading matter for a full 24 hours.And you'll learn a lot about the 16-35...

FWIW, my experience with the 16-35 f/2.8II is that is is a competent though imperfect lens. I think you'll see that born out when you read some of the 100's of reviews for this lens that you will find on the www.